When she got out of her car one of the two brandished a handgun and took her purse. The couple was arrested four days later by detectives and they are charged with assault, armed robbery and theft.

Given that they committed a crime with a firearm in Maryland they should expect a stiff penalty and some jail time. But, this is Maryland and even though they broke the law they might get a plea bargain for lesser crimes and end up walking only to commit more crimes in the future.

Maryland is easy on criminals but tough on the law abiding. The man who had the gun is Mark West. He has a lengthy criminal history that includes assault, CDS possession with intent to distribute and violation of both probation and peace orders. I don’t know his specifics but this history would indicate he would not be allowed to legally own a firearm.

In many of his past cases he was not prosecuted (looks like the charges were dropped) and for those he was prosecuted he received little in the way of punishment.

Maryland would rather keep putting criminals on the street and harass law abiding citizens.

In Maryland the law abiding cannot carry a firearm at all openly (it is alleged that one may carry a long gun but that would be unwise) and concealed carry permits only go to special people. Maryland has decided that certain firearms are not allowed in the state and its citizens may not purchase them.

The laws are designed to keep the law abiding from getting or carrying firearms. Self protection is not a valid reason in the state.

It would appear though, West had no trouble getting a firearm and using it in a crime even though he has a criminal history and probably would not be allowed to have one.

The point has been made many times that gun laws only apply to people who obey the law in the first place.

This story proves that point.

Maryland is a nanny state that infringes upon the rights of its citizens.

I hope this trend reverses starting next Wednesday when a new governor is sworn in.

By now most people know what happens when legislation is rushed through because we have the glaring example of Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it and things come to light each day. Hell, Obama said there was nothing in Obamacare to prevent doctors from asking about guns in the home but he must not have read the thing because there is (page 2308). A section dedicated to the rights of gun owners prevents such questions and prevents establishing databases.

The state of New York enacted even tougher gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The legislation was rushed through as New York Governor Cum-o waived requirements (calling it an emergency) so it could pass and be signed quickly. The first problem is that there was no emergency that required waiving the three day legislation requirement (there were no school shooting rampages in New York) and it is obvious this was done for political reasons. Cum-o wanted to get it passed before opposing views could be presented and he wanted to sign it quickly to avoid a rush on gun purchases.

This is all about controlling people and not addressing the issue of criminals using guns illegally to do things that are against the law. Keep in mind that every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime he is already breaking a bunch of laws. The reality is that liberals want to take guns away so they can impose tyranny on the country. Unarmed people are slaves and the Democrat Party is the party of slave owners.

The problem NY faces is that the legislation was rammed through so quickly that there was no exemption on the size of magazines police officers can use. This means that police officers will be in violation of the law.

I am not opposed to that as I do not believe that the police should be allowed to have higher capacity magazines than law abiding citizens. In fact, since we all know that these laws only affect the law abiding, the criminals will be the only ones with higher capacity magazines. This is something that has not escaped the notice of the police in NY:

State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he’s going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, “You can’t give more ammo to the criminals” WABC

This statement is a direct admission that the new law will do NOTHING to prevent criminals from keeping higher capacity magazines. It is an admission that the law will only affect the law abiding. It is an admission that the goal is to disarm the law abiding and an admission that criminals do NOT obey the law.

How many NY police leaders stood with Cum-o and agreed with him? How many are OK with law abiding citizens being shackled while criminals are left untouched? How many realize that the law they want an exemption to will affect people the way they want to avoid?

This law should not be amended unless the amendment is to repeal it. The police in New York should suffer the same fate as those they are supposed to serve. There is no reason for the police to have more ammo than the average citizen when we all know the criminals will always have more and that the police will arrive afterthe crime has been committed.

In 1990 Republican Clayton “Claytie” Williams of Texas made a joke involving rape by comparing it to the weather:

As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.

It was distasteful when it was said and people expressed as much when he was defeated in his bid to become Governor of Texas. The words came back to life in 2008 when Williams hosted an event for John McCain. The left, well known for selective outrage, wondered if McCain would return campaign donations associated with Williams. The association game the left played had already forced McCain to cancel his attendance at a fundraiser held at Williams’ home.

Game? The left was so worried about associations that it jumped all over McCain for something that Williams said nearly two decades earlier while ignoring or defending the Obama associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and a long list of other anti American radicals. Associations only matter when they are the ones Republicans have. Williams told an awful and insensitive joke, Ayers blew up the Pentagon and murdered people. McCain’s association with Williams is the one that garnered opposition from the left.

Even though the joke by Williams was distasteful he only expressed the feelings of liberals when it comes to people protecting themselves.

In Washington, DC the elected officials were discussing people exercising their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The politicians in DC feel that carrying a weapon to protect one’s self only escalates a situation and that the best thing people can do is give criminals what they want and though you might get injured you will heal and your stuff can be replaced.

In other words, they think that if it is inevitable you might as well enjoy it.

I am obviously not a woman but I think that any woman who is faced with being raped should do what every person faced with crime should do. FIGHT. I would rather die fighting for what is right and what belongs to me than to live as a coward who gave in to criminals but this is what liberal politicians want us to do. They are so entrenched in a victim mentality they want us all to be victims.

I am not wired that way and neither are the people I know.

Claytie Williams was wrong on several levels when he made his insensitive remark in 1990.

If the weather is inevitable you prepare for it. If it is going to be hot and sunny you get sunscreen, if it is going to be cold you get a coat and if it is going to rain you carry an umbrella. In other words, you make sure you are prepared for the challenge presented.

The same applies to rape or any other crime. If you are able to exercise your Constitutional right then you have the ability, or you are prepared, in case someone tries to make you a crime victim. You might hope it does not rain but you carry an umbrella just in case. You pray never to be a crime victim but you carry a gun just in case.

But to a liberal it somehow makes more sense for a woman to be found bound, gagged, throat slit, and raped than for her to be explaining to the police how the dead criminal got a bunch of bullet holes in him.

Maybe if we are not allowed to carry a gun and become a crime victim we should be allowed to exact revenge on the politician who felt it was better for us to be harmed than to defend ourselves.

Better yet. what say we forbid any politician who thinks this way from buying a gun or obtaining a permit to carry one and we remove that politician’s protective detail. We can include Obama and we can remove the police at the Capitol who screen people entering the building.

I mean, wouldn’t it be better if these politicians just surrendered to any criminal rather than drawing a weapon or having the police draw weapons?

That might escalate the situation.

This is one of the many reasons liberalism/progressivism is a mental disorder.